Search

The article takes a critical look at the idea that the gathering of men Lucretia confronts a few moments before her suicide is to be understood as an ancient Roman domestic court (consilium domesticum). Arguing from the basis that the paternal power (patria potestas) is a constitutive element of this private-law institution, it examines what supports and what conflicts with the interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most important symbols of the Roman state were undoubtedly the Vestal Virgins. They embodied the continuity of the res publica for centuries. As the guardians of the eternal flame throughout Roman history, they managed to secure a very high social position. Their social and sacred role was recognised and exploited by Roman political life. The best example of this was Augustus, who regarded the ancient priestly order as an important pillar of his own system. Through them, the princeps sought to demonstrate that the Imperium Romanum could recover from a bloody civil war and uphold the ideal that had already endured for 700 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Roma Hukukunda “Crimen Laesae Maiestatis” olarak adlandırılan vatana ihanet suçunun ilk defa Roma hukukunda pater familiasa karşı işlenen suçlar olarak ortaya çıktığı kabul edilmektedir. Erken dönemde ismine parricidum denilen cinayet suçu sosyal istikrarı bozacak mahiyette görüldüğünden ihanet suçu olarak kabul edilirken artık devletin kurumsallaşmasıyla içine parricidum suçlarını da alan perduellio kavramı ihanet suçlarını tanımlamak için kullanılmıştır. Perduellio olarak kabul edilen tüm eylemlerin ortak özelliği ise bir tür özel kast olan faildeki “hostilis animus” veya “topluma zarar verme niyeti”nin varlığıdır. Perduellio dışında devlete karşı en ciddi suçlar crimen laesa maiestas olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu suçlar MÖ 103 civarında Lex Appuleia De Maiestate ile başlayan ve Digesta ile biten özel yasalarda düzenlenen suçlar olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Roma hukukunun tesiriyle Orta Çağ Avrupası’nda kralın kutsal ve dokunulmaz şahsına karşı işlenen suçlar da vatana ihanet suçu olarak nitelendirilmiştir. XIX. yüzyılda ise bu suçlar siyasi suçlar başlığı altında incelenmiştir. Yürürlükteki hukukumuzda vatana ihanet adında bir suç yoksa da bu başlık altında tavsif edilebilecek çeşitli suçların TCK’da bulunduğunu, karşılaştırmalı hukuk ve hukuk tarihimize bakarak, söylemek yanlış olmayacaktır. Bu çalışmada öncelikle vatana ihanet suçunun çeşitli hukuk sistemlerindeki tarihi kökeni müteakiben mukayeseli hukukta vatana ihanet suçları son olarak da Türk hukuk doktrinde vatan ihanet suçu ele alınacak, sonuç kısmında ise Türk hukukunda hangi suçların vatana ihanet sayılabileceği sorusuna cevap bulunmaya çalışılacaktır.

This paper studies examples of how exponents of Roman declamation could insert into arguments on the trivial, even fantastic, cases known as controuersiae statements of striking relevance to the political culture of the triumviral and early imperial period. This is particularly apparent in the Controuersiae of Seneca the Elder but some traces remain in the Minor Declamations attributed to Quintilian. The boundaries separating Rome itself from the declamatory city referred to by modern scholars as Sophistopolis are significantly blurred even in those instances where the exercise does not turn on a specific event from Roman history, and there is much to be gained from how the declaimers deploy Roman historical examples. Some of the most sophisticated instances of mediated political comment exploit the employment of universalizing sententiae, which have considerable bite when they are related to contemporary Roman discourse and experience. The declamation schools are a forum for thinking through the implications of the transformation of the Roman state and deserve a place within any history of Roman political thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

À bien des égards, les Siete Partidas ont accueilli des influences romaines. Tel fut le cas notamment du droit des tutelles, qui témoigne incidemment du rôle accordé aux femmes dans la société médiévale hispanique. Conçue comme une fonction impliquant l’exercice d’une puissance, la tutelle fut orientée en fonction de la figure masculine. Cela s’observe à travers le vocabulaire employé dans les Partidas, ainsi que les exclusions dont souffrent les femmes. Néanmoins, la possibilité pour la mère ou la grand-mère de recueillir la tutelle de leurs enfants orphelins fut reconnue, héritage d’une concession du droit romain tardif. Cette tutelle s’intégrait alors dans un mécanisme plus complexe de nomination, puisqu’aux conditions habituelles, s’y ajoutaient deux nouvelles, réservées aux femmes, et surtout, cumulatives. Il s’agissait ainsi d’encadrer et d’assurer dans la durée la protection des orphelins, le sexe féminin étant considéré comme plus susceptible d’y préjudicier, de manière intentionnelle ou non.

This paper examines the role of fathers in the lives of married daughters in the first decades of the modern Greek state. The establishment of modern Greece radically transformed the legal landscape by creating a centralized uniform judicial system in place of the legal pluralism of Ottoman Greece. Earlier research has shown that in Ottoman Greece there was great diversity with respect to the relations of women and their kin following their marriage; in some regions such links were almost severed while in others women maintained close and intimate relations throughout their married lives. Such research is lacking with regards to the early decades of Modern Greece. While the structure of the Greek judicial system is becoming increasingly better known its effects on familiar relations has not yet been explored. With regards to the legal rights and obligations of parents and children in particular, the situation was complex since Greece failed to introduce a comprehensive civil code until the twentieth century. In its absence customary practices, legal scholars, and the courts strove to clarify relations within the family. My examination focuses on a few cases that appeared in front of the Appeals Court of Athens a generation after the formal establishment of the Modern Greek State. In these cases fathers sued their sons-in-law on behalf of their daughters usually in order to protect their dowry. I use these cases to discuss the role and rights of parents in the lives of their married offspring, as well as the rights of women in marriage and the changes the creation of Modern Greece brought upon pre-existing customs. I argue that for the nineteenth century at least, there appears a continuation of the practices seen in Ottoman and even Byzantine times although the ability of kin to become legally involved in the lives of married women became explicitly tied to the legal age of maturity limiting the scope of intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since Mommsen, it has been a tenet of Roman history that Augustus transformed the 'senatorial order' into a hereditary class, which encompassed senators, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the male line. This paper shows that the idea of a hereditary ordo senatorius is a myth without foundation in the evidence. Augustus and his successors conferred new rights and duties upon relatives of senators, but did not change their formal rank. Moreover, the new regulations applied not to three generations of descendants, but only to persons who stood under a senator's patria potestas during his lifetime. Emperors protected the honour and property of these filii familias of senators, in order to incentivise them to participate in politics and invest their wealth into munificence. The Supplementary Material available online gives all known early imperial holders of the title clarissimus vir in the province of Africa (Supplementary Appendix 1), all known early imperial clarissimi iuuenes (Supplementary Appendix 2) and all known early imperial clarissimi pueri (Supplementary Appendix 3). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Roman adoption is the antecedent of our current normative system. Both adoptio and adrogatio allowed someone to artificially form part of the domus of the adopter under the potestas of a new paterfamilias with the purpose or social function of securing the cult of the manes gods. Progressively, adoption became widespread in social customs and became a tool to ascend the social ladder, acquire inheritance, evade certain exclusions imposed by legislation, exchange surplus children among different family groups, establish personal alliances, of kinship and of inter-familial dynastic solidarity, and of designating a political successor under the election of the optimus (chief emperors and emperors of the Roman nobilitas). During the Justinian reign, the family structure is transformed and the adoptio is subdivided into two modalities: adoptio plena and adoptio minus plena.

Copyright of Hacettepe Law Review is the property of Hacettepe Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Patria potestas appears in the tradition in two aspects: as the father s right to put his son to death and as the right to dispose of the family property. AH examples concerning the murder of the son (or daughters) known to the Roman authors are from the time of the Roman Republic. The father's right to dispose of the property even when the son is an adult lasted until the Later Empire. In a detailed study W. V. Harris limited his discussion to ten examples of the son s murder and three of the daughter. They are mostly not qualified as the ius vitae ac necis by the Roman authors. It is important to stress: a) That these examples mainly illustrate the father s right in charge as the high magistrate. In putting their sons to death the fathers-magistrates did not use the vitae necisque potestas of the father but the authority of supreme state officers. The crimes of which the sons were accused belonged not to family affairs but to offences against the military discipline and State interests. b) The only condition in applying the vitae necisque potestas was a moral one, the existence of the iusta causa. Even then it was not unpunished, and in many cases the father went into exile. c) The father's power existed only over legally born children within a legal marriage. Legal marriage was the privilege of patricians until 444 BC. That means that the patria potestas was originally limited only to patrician families. Biological kinship was not a decisive factor in the restitution of the father - children connection. d) The main right of the pater in the family was not to kill its members, but to preserve his position in economic control and to dispose of the property which was once common and eventually to control the moral behavior of the family members.

La hipótesis de este artículo es que la patria potestad debería ser entendida hoy, después de la reforma de la Ley N° 19.585, de 1998, como una función tuitiva sobre la persona y bienes de los hijos. Para demostrar esta proposición, el artículo examina los antecedentes históricos y el desarrollo dogmático de la patria potestad en el Código Civil chileno. Luego, desde la perspectiva de las reformas más recientes al Derecho de familia, el artículo revisa el contenido de esta función, tanto en sus aspectos personales como patrimoniales. Desde la misma perspectiva, el trabajo termina examinando la evolución de esta institución en cuanto a sus sujetos activos y pasivos.The hypothesis of this article is that patria potestas should be understood today, even after reforms of Law 19 585, 1998, as a children's guardianship over person and property. This proposition is demonstrated in the article with resource to the historical background of the appropriate Titles of the Chilean Civil Code that provide rules to it, and with review of statutory development afterwards. Trom the point of view of the most recent developments in Tamily Law, the article reviews the contents of patria potestas, both in its personal and patrimonial aspects. It concludes that there is not much change in it. Change has come on the contrary from individuals entitled to exercise the function, most commonly the father, the mother of both of them jointly.

Roman adoption is the antecedent of our current normative system. Both adoptio and adrogatio allowed someone to artificially form part of the domus of the adopter under the potestas of a new paterfamilias with the purpose or social function of securing the cult of the manes gods. Progressively, adoption became widespread in social customs and became a tool to ascend the social ladder, acquire inheritance, evade certain exclusions imposed by legislation, exchange surplus children among different family groups, establish personal alliances, of kinship and of inter-familial dynastic solidarity, and of designating a political successor under the election of the optimus (chief emperors and emperors of the Roman nobilitas). During the Justinian reign, the family structure is transformed and the adoptio is subdivided into two modalities: adoptio plena and adoptio minus plena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medieval fatherhood, like masculinity, was built upon intersecting identities. The present paper aims to identify those identities, to analyse the way in which they were constructed and to examine the linkages between fatherhood and masculinity in the context of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Montpellier, a great city in Mediterranean Languedoc. Fatherhood is a dynamic research field in medieval studies that is now enriched by the gender studies’ conceptual frame. Becoming and being a father had many social and cultural implications in late-medieval societies that correlated to gendered constructs. Of this complex subject, our inquiry in the Montpellier archives can offer only a fragmentary view. The article focuses on three fields of history connected to the study of medieval fathers: legal history, the history of the emotions and economic history, and illustrates how those fields can benefit from a more gendered perspective, helping us to enrich our understanding of medieval fatherhood and its relationship with masculine identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patria potestas appears in the tradition in two aspects: as the father's right to put his son to death and as the right to dispose of the family property. All examples concerning the murder of the son (or daughters) known to the Roman authors are from the time of the Roman Republic. The father's right to dispose of the property even when the son is an adult lasted until the Later Empire. In a detailed study W. V. Harris limited his disucussion to ten examples of the son's murder and three of the daughter. They are mostly not qualified as the ius vitae ac necis by the Roman authors. It is important to stress: a) That these examples mainly illustrate the father's right in charge as the high magistrate. In putting their sons to death the fathersmagistrates did not use the vitae necisque potestas of the father but the authority of supreme state officers. The crimes of which the sons were accused belonged not to family affairs but to offences against the military discipline and State interests. b) The only condition in applying the vitae necisque potestas was a moral one, the existence of the iusta causa. Even then it was not unpunished, and in many cases the father went into exile. c) The father's power existed only over legally born children within a legal marriage. Legal marriage was the privilege of patricians until 444 BC. That means that the patria potestas was originally limited only to patrician families. Biological kinship was not a decisive factor in the restitution of the father - children connection. d) The main right of the pater in the family was not to kill its members, but to preserve his position in economic control and to dispose of the property which was once common and eventually to control the moral behavior of the family members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The word familia meant to be a family in the broadest sense and it formed the basics of the Ancient Roman social life. Persons under the patria potestas were also seen in the familia. In the narrow sense patria potestas meant to be the power of a father or his sovereignty; and broadly it meant to be the dominance of the father over the all children, grandchildren and other family members including slaves. In order to be pater familias it was necessary to be a man who is also separated from patria potestas. Pater familias had the rights such as military service, elect and to be elected and marriage as a normal Roman citizen. The dominance of pater familias over the family members was certain. Reasons that end patria potestas were death, capitis deminutio and emancipatio. In the case of death patria potestas would end spontaneously. Capitis deminutio was the situation that the family leader pater familias was captured in a war or exiled. Thus it is impossible to have a patria potestas while being a prisoner or not having the qualification to dominate someone. Ifone of children in the family became a monk or a high-ordered person, this is a situation that would end patria potestas in terms of capitis deminutio. In Rome girls were also able to have religious education and become a monk. And in this case they could split from patria potestas too in the same way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research covers the changes in the familial structures that occurred during the first millennium. In particular, it focuses on the institution of patria potestas and on emancipation. By looking at the transformation of juridical institutions, this article seeks to show the long-term evolution of the relation between adulthood, marriage, and emancipation in the families of late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. This research analyzes Roman law and the law of the Christian Mediterranean during this period, particularly in the Iberian and Italian Peninsulas as well as in the Byzantine Empire. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Tiempos Modernos is the property of Tiempos Modernos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Expositors and translators of the lively Latin comedies of Plautus (250s - ca.184 BC) are often too little informed of rules and terms of Roman Law. Sometimes this deficiency leaves readers or, in performance, audiences unaware of amusing irony and clever joking. They find a bland bit of dialogue or unremarkable circumstance where the playwright included, in plays loosely modeled after Greek ones, not only Roman references but Roman humor. Comparison of translations with the Latin behind them shows how much may missed if one does not understand contemporary law pertaining (for example) to personal status and contract, some of it recently developed by the Praetores Urbani. Related texts show the richness of Plautus' legaljocular scripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does a newborn child that has been abandoned by a parent remain under the potestas of the father? According to modern Romanists, it did. Of the two texts that are usually referred to in this connection, only one mentions the notion patria potestas. This text, D. 40.4.29, is about a foundling who had found his birth mother and then claimed not only his father's inheritance but also the freedmen who had been manumitted under his father's will. The first claim was successful, the second one was not. In Romanist literature, the success of the first claim is explained by the foundling still being under his father's potestas and thus being a suus heres. However, the patria potestas is only mentioned in connection with the second claim. This paper argues that, while D. 40.4.29 does not prove the continued potestas of a father over his foundling son, it does point to the increasing importance of blood relationship in the law of succession of the second century AD. The reference to the patria potestas forms part of the argument that the foundling should not ask for more than what he would have received as a testamentary heir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Roman pater familias was entitled to the following positive rights: ius vitae ac necis, ius exponendi, ius vendendi and ius noxae dedendi. What follows is an in-depth analysis of the changes in ius vitae ac necis and ius exponendi. Ius vitae ac necis denotes right of disposal over the life and death of a filius/filia familias, while ius exponendi the right to expose newborn infants. Exposing a child often contained its death or wilful murder; e.g., in case of a deformed child when the aim was to get the family or the community rid ofprodigium representing ill luck. Therefore, it seems to be more proper to discuss the rights a father had against newborn infants--no matter if they applied to killing or only exposing the child--as part of ius exponendi since killing or exposing children was several times limited and sanctioned in a single imperial decree. Originally, ius vitae ac necis was sacral and punitive law power. Its sacral character came to the front when killing a deformed child since this right is the component of the father's power over his newborn infant, and this will be discussed under the heading ius exponendi; its punitive law aspect will become obvious when it is used against an adult child. This paper, first, intends to describe changes in ius vitae ac necis, and dwell on the restrictions and rules of procedure of exercising it (I.). After that, changes in ius exponendi will be followed up, with special regard to the regulation of the legal status of the exposed child (II.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generally it is assumed that caput in the phrase noxa caput sequitur refers to the delinquent slave or filius familias. The liability for the delict is attached to his person. It is argued, however, that caput refers to the pater familias of the delinquent. The Twelve Tables contained a rule on their direct and personal liability (with surrender to the autorities). The introduction of the edicts on furtum and the lex Aquilia, with the direct and exclusive liability of The pater familias for the wrongdoings of those, subjected to his potestas, led to a correction: the pater could now refuse to defend them and surrender them to the authorities, or engage in the process, with afterwards still the possibility to surrender, now to the plaintiff. The phrase as such refers then to the inclusion of the decemviral rule on liability of persons subjected to patria potestas, into the formulas for the delicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second chapter of Augustus’lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendisentitles the Roman father – under specific, narrowly defined circumstances – to kill his adulterous daughter and her lover. This paper focuses on three aspects: First, it explores the Roman traditional institution ofpatria potestas,which had its most vigorous expression in the father'svitae necisque potestas– the power over life and death of his kin. Second, Augustus introduced public court procedures for adultery and thus shifted the ‘legal’ treatment of adultery from the fathers’ domestic jurisdiction to the public state justice; the paper ventilates strategies that Augustus seems to have pursued to achieve this shift, and their historic setting. The central value of Augustus’lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendisis the Roman women'spudicitia,a code of conduct which (re)defined legitimate marriage as the only situation in which a reputable woman could practice sex without reproach or other sanctions. This had a long and firm tradition in Roman society. By way of historiography, Lucretia and Verginia are surrounded in mysticism as most influential role models of proper femalepudicitia. Remarkably, Lucretia and Verginia establish a message of bloodshed: the infringement of a woman'spudicitiais such an outrage that her death must ensue. Third, the analysis turns to the fact that no source reports a father having killed his daughter according to the second chapter of thelex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis. Evaluating the very narrow statutory limits of this provision, it seems likely that Roman fathers were discouraged from resorting to the remnant of theirpater familiasjurisdiction in adultery cases. This finding leads to the question as to whether Augustus’ curbing of the fatherly jurisdiction resulted in the empowerment of Roman women. There is no apparent answer to this, because domestic jurisdiction as well as public court trials can either cultivate or disregard fairness and justice. Constantine's decree reported in Cod. 9.9.29(30).4 suggests that until 326 A.D. Roman criminal law provided no capital punishment for a woman tried and convicted for adultery in a court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho UNED is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the last years, the Chamber on Civil and Administrative Matters of the People?s Supreme Court, construing inmobiliary law to protect childrens rights, has propitiated the transmission of ownership on personal property homes to them, even when children are heirs or legataires not occupying the house at the moment of the owners death; all this under the idea by which lack of legal capacity in minors, patria potestas and tutorship they are all submitted to, forbid them to freely determine the place of residence, therefore, the phisycal occupation of the home. This position has also been assumed by the Direction of Civil Registers and Notaries in cases where the heir child not occupying the home has the consent of those heirs actually occupying it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parental rights originate in patria potestas, the proprietary power of the Roman father, and its incidents of custody, control and corporal punishment. Parental rights as proprietary rights, as rights over another, cannot co-exist with children's rights. What, then, are parental rights in the age of children's rights? This Essay surveys the influence of Roman doctrine on modern law in and through the Supreme Court of Canada. The court acknowledges children's rights, views proprietary rights over children as a thing of the past and recognizes custody as the child's right, not the parent's. Yet the court vitiated the fiduciary standard for parents, limited state parens patriae jurisdiction and upheld two of the three incidents of patria potestas. By making childhood an excuse for avoiding principled rights analysis, conflating adult interests with children's rights and confusing assault with touch, the court upheld the proprietary rights of corporal punishment and control. If parental rights are understood as rights correlative to parental fiduciary duty, and if rights are seen as markers of relationship rather than its antithesis, then the law is rid of archaic notions of parental rights. The way is open to substantive judicial and social engagement with the rights of the child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Semata: Ciencias Sociais e Humanidades is the property of Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Servicio de Publicaciones and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the present article the author discuss about a study of the family right appears as historical event from the Roman law. The family must be studied inside the system of historical research because it would be a mistake to do without the juridical slope that the Roman law provides. The romanist here must use an own method to determine it corresponding incident in the study of information which substantial content purified across the time provides the justification of such precedents The Roman law is in addition an essential element of the European Law, since, traditionally it constitutes the base of the codified Civil law of the countries that constitute the Western Europe. Nevertheless, not only it is it, but also it contributes with fundamental concepts of "Constitutional" Roman Law that have influenced the configuration of the European Public law that today survives in the modern States; we cannot forget the influence of the Byzantine Roman Law that likewise constitutes the foundation of the legislations of the nations of the European East. Also we want to emphasize the utility of the Roman law as set of the principles of Law that have applied the Roman society in the different epochs of her existence from her origin in the primitive(original) Etruscan Monarchy (753 a/EC) up to the death of the emperor Justiniano (535 d/EC). The study has not stopped constituting with just degree the base of any juridical really worthy education of this name and for it the best university spirits have never stopped being his ardent and convinced defenders. As says the teacher PETIT, the Roman law must be studied as a model where there are not included only the study of his laws but the practical applications that were done by the lawyers, all which differ for a notable logic and for a great sensitivity of analysis and of deduction. Everybody Known that the Romans had, in effect, a special aptitude for the right as well as the Greeks had it for the philosophy; if to this we add that the Roman Empire included in his domination the whole civilized Universe, easily there will be understood that this one Law is the result of the work of the human spirit in what it has of worship. Respect of the institution of the family, in own sense, family iure is a group of persons who stay under the legal authority of one of them, which it is the paterfamilias, which exercises any authority that comes out, enclosedly the ordinarily domestic area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the authority of fathers under French law. Paternal authority was strongly established during the Roman Empire and continued to influence French society for a long time. This article focuses on the authority and legal power of fathers in the French region of Provence. This study examines how fathers exercised control over both sons and daughters. An examination of court rulings from family courts in the city of Aix-en-Provence, France from 1791 to 1795, is provided. Among the areas where fathers were able to exercise control were marriage, control of delinquent children, and inheritance law.

The Roman paterfamilias' power over his household, his patria potestas, was extreme and could encroach upon all domains of the lives of his dependants. Its most radical manifestation was the vitae necisque potestas, or the right to kill one's own children with impunity. There are twenty-two extant Roman declamations in which fathers have killed, or wish to kill, their sons. After an excursion into their juridical and historical background, I will discuss them briefly. It will appear that though sometimes critical of excesses, they serve to confirm rather than undermine the patria potestas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper starts from the determination of the area of subjective application of the new Children and Adolescents Code, especially as regards the situation of the conceived child. After making reference to the influence on Succession Law as a consequence of the change in the wording of an article about legitimate filiation, it studies some regulations from the new Children and Adolescents Code; particularly, those that have led to interpret that certain fundamental family law institutions, such as patria potestas, have been revoked by the new codifier. It also studies the legal situation of those people whom the codifier designates as responsible for the children and adolescents. Finally, it aims to decipher the regulations relative to legitimate adoption, which are not in consonance with those designated as "foster-home care". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contains some reflections about the joint custody new regulation introduced by Act 15/2005, which modifies Spanish Civil Code and Procedure Civil Act related to separation and marriage. After analysing the situation precedent to that amendment, we point out the short-legislative technique showed by the lawmaker and certain problems related to its interpretation and appliance by the Courts. According to our opinion on the matter, the normative approach should be proposed as a general rule and not based on the fact of the existence of a cohabitation situation. Only then we can achieve the principle of equality between parents which inspires most of our closest laws as regards this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses laws related to child custody after separation and divorce in Argentina. The parent-child relationship legal system in Argentina is called patria potestad. The operation of patria potestad is regulated in the Civil Code. The Civil Code defines patria potestad as all the duties and rights parents have in relation to the child and his/her property for his/her protection and complete upbringing. If a child's parents reside together, whether married or not, they jointly exercise patria potestad. In case married parents separate, divorce, or their marriage is annulled, both parents still exercise patria potestad. Under patria potestad, certain acts involving a child under the age of majority require consent of both parents, regardless of whether the parents are living together or separately. There is no provision of joint custody in the Civil Code. Under Argentine law, parents may decide on the custody and access arrangements for their child by agreement in divorce or separation proceedings.

This article highlights machismo, a key cultural concept that supports men as the designated head-of-household for the entire extended family. To understand the multifaceted face of machismo, as supported by the concept of patria potestas, this article reviews its etiology, and roots in religious and legal precepts that support the traditional culture. Research findings support a view of Latino fathers as caring individuals who do an active role in their children's upbringing. Contrary to the stereotypes and the popular view of machismo, the bond between fathers and children is one that is inherent in the culture, as based on the definition of children as belonging to the father as in patria potesta. Puerto Rican culture, and Latino cultures in general, are very different from the dominant Anglo culture in the U.S. The principal values of Latino culture, including fatalism, ascription, personalism, and male superiority, are, for the most part opposed to dominant U.S. values that emphasize individualism, orientation to the future, instrumentalism, and status based on personal accomplishment and equality. When taken out of its cultural context and interpreted by a host culture, machismo is most often viewed negatively as containing moral and social deficits.